Why Jack McCoy of Law and Order would be spending twenty to life in jail if I had it my way.

A few days ago, Mike Nifong, the former District Attorney in North Carolina overseeing the prosecution of the Duke University rape case, plead not guilty to charges of contempt of court for his mishandling of the case. He has been disbarred and paid nearly $9,000 for troubling the North Carolina Bar Association with a hearing, but it is not nearly enough for his role in the destruction of several very fine young men's reputation. He is the ideal poster boy for legislatures around the world to mandate that all evidence found by the police be turned over first to the defense counsel before the trial or a judge to determine the sustainability of the charges before handing the evidence to the prosecutors instead of the stupidity of allowing the prosecutors to decided what constitute pertinent evidence and to present in a court of law. The mere fact that there is even one prosecutor who believes the definition of pertinent evidence is whatever existing evidence that would aid in the conviction of the accused, and NOT in the search for truth is one too many rogue prosecutors. This is not the first time that prosecutors ignored evidence that indicated someone else, other than accused, definitely committed the crime. Steven Truscott of Ontario was convicted of murdering a 12-year old schoolmate. That case took fifty years for the courts to acknowledge a grave miscarriage of justice and, only now, in 2007, the truth is coming to light. The prosecutors in those days knowingly ignored evidence of the accused probable innocence.

The general public seems to forget that defendants are entitled to a fair trial first and foremost and NOT a guaranteed victory for the state. I fear sadly that American justice today hinges wrongly upon legal technicalities and NOT the pursuit of truth. Frankly, I am not surprised, given that every time a prosecutor puts the wrong person in jail faces very little real punishment. Furthermore, today's prosecutors are only interested in getting the toughest punishment regardless of the questionability of the conviction. I mean prosecutors would gladly indict and convict a ham sandwich, even though they know that the ham sandwich had very little to do with the crime in question, and would suppress any and all evidence that fails to agree with their theory of the crime. I have long held that many prosecutors care more for their win-loss record than withdrawing the indictments against defendants they know full well that had nothing to do with the crime.

I have a real solution to this problem. I would not allow prosecutors to get away with a lame excuse that it is a mistake. It is important to remember that the district attorney in many cases does not have to time to make sure that every t is crossed and every i is dotted for every case. Those people often rely completely on the professional lawyers under them to do their job correctly. I am referring to the Jack McCoys and Nancy Graces of the world who would do whatever it takes to ensure a conviction. I cannot help but remember one of Jack McCoy's favourite lines, which said in effect that a defendant going free is bad for business. Every time a prosecutor puts the wrong person in jail, the persecutor must serve that sentence completely, for example the wrongly imprisoned individual received the death penalty; the entire prosecuting team would face the gallows as well as stripped of their license to practice. Also, the prosecutors should be personally and fully responsible for the upkeep of the wronged. In some cases, the wrongly imprisoned person would have a social stima attached to him or her for many years and banks may have a bias against loans for such "questionable" characters, rightly or wrongly, or, if they do, banks may wish to charge very high interest.

Then there is the possibility of civil action against the accused after the criminal trial declared the man not guilty, most famously OJ Simpson. Granted that some defendants might have very well committed the question and got away with it, it is still very wrong that vindictive individuals like Fred Goldman and his family would pursue a person to the nth degree for some sort of justice. Again, take the Truscott case, is it fair that a vindictive family of a victim should be allowed to pursue an individual who is truly innocent of the charges on the premise of the mere possibility of the individual's involvement for the kinds of money that the Goldman family is now pursuing Simpson for and the way it is being done? In the case of the Duke University rape case, the students were very lucky that their innocence was established relatively quickly and the prosecutor in question paid, in my opinion underpaid, for his mistakes. It is cases like the Truscott and the Duke University cases that civil action should be barred until and unless fresh evidence can establish that the prosecution screwed up and that the defendant is in all probability guilty of the crime.

I know someone in Vancouver who has a scandal over that individual's head at a fairly critical time in terms of gaining higher office in a very prestigious organisation. He was ultimately exonerated of the mess. The mere fact that he could be involved cost that person twenty years before making a bid and any chances of further advancement. Worse, most people forget that he was exonerated of all charges and only remember the freaking scandal. That was one aspect of his life that ran into trouble, as for his business, I don't know exactly the damage that scandal cost him, but I am reasonable sure that it took its toll.

Could anyone imagine the huge incentive for them to actually make sure that right person is convicted? I am personally in favour of tougher sentences against violent criminals, but it is useless if the wrong person gets it. That is the bottom line to my belief that I would rather see a hundred or a thousand guilty men go free before one innocent man sits behind bars. Frankly, in the modern media circus, once the prosecutor names an individual as the defendant, the court of public opinion automatically deems the accused as guilty and that person's reputation is tarnished forever regardless of the fact that the individual in question has been exonerated of the charges. Doesn't anyone find this outrageous? More importantly, isn't it even more outrageous that society at large would still punish people who were exonerated of the crime or crimes in question in silent ways like being denied a job or any type of loan or even charged for a higher interest rate?

The only good that came out of the Truscott case is ending the death penalty. Thank Heavens.